Madras High Court
V.Kanimozhi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 24 February, 2026
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 27.11.2025
Pronounced on 24.02.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.Nos.32104, 30388, 33384, 39066, 17954, 27228, 7754, 39038,
39043, 39048 & 39067 of 2025,
30790, 31020, 27401, 28118, 29392 of 2024,
14411 of 2022 & 10035 of 2021
& W.M.P.Nos.43775, 43807, 43761, 43767, 43768, 43773, 43811,
43808, 34070, 34072, 36003, 8705, 8706, 20165, 20166, 43812, 13638,
30601, 30599, 37541, 37543 & 43759 of 2025
29904, 32025, 32027, 33640, 33393, 33631, 33636 & 30669 of 2024
& 13637 of 2022
W.P.No.32104 of 2025:
1.V.Kanimozhi
2.K.Kowsallia Balaiah
3.C.R.Leelamma
4.Sathiyam Subbiah
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Commissioner of Land Administration ,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 05
2.The Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
1/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
3.The District Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Divisional Engineer (H),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
Authority Plan, Division 1, Alandur,
Chennai 16
6.Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 08
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records on the file of the
5th respondent in Memo No. 52/ 2018/ CMDP DN-I/ JDO dated
6.06.2024 and the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent in
Government Gazette No. VI(1) / 561 (b-5)/ 2024 in No, 276 Part VI-
Section 1 dated 27.08.2024 in so far as the petitioners concerned and to
quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction
W.P.No.30388 of 2025:
1.V.Munisamy
2.Ayyam Perumal
3.C.Dhayananth
2/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
4.A.Suganthi
5.Vimala Jothikumar
6.P.Chithra
7.M.Vasantha
8.P.Muthulakshmi
9.A.Aravind Karthik
10.Sarala Varadharajulu
11.K.A.Sakila
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Commissioner of Land Administration ,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 05
2.The Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
3.The District Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Divisional Engineer (H),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
Authority Plan, Division 1, Alandur,
Chennai 16
6.Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 08
... Respondents
3/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of
the 5th Respondent in Memo No.52/2018/CMDP DN-I/JDO dated
06.06.2024, and the consequential proceedings of the 1st Respondent in
Government Gazette No.276, Part- VI, Section -1, dated 27.08.2024 in
No.VI (1) 561 (b-5) /2024 infofar as the petitioners are concerned and to
quash the same as illegal incompetent and without jurisdiction
W.P.No.33384 of 2025:
1.K.S.Surya Narayanan
2.P.Muthulakshmi
3.G.Sampath
4.Anees Fathima
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Commissioner of Land Administration ,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 05
2.The Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
3.The District Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
4/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
5.The Divisional Engineer (H),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
Authority Plan, Division 1, Alandur,
Chennai 16
6.Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 08
7.CLRI Staff Cooperative House,
Building society Ltd.,
Rep by Secretary,
No.235, 1st Main Road, CLRI Nagar,
Neelagarai, Chennai
8.Central Leather Research Institute,
Rep by Director,
Counsil of Scientific and Industrial Research,
Adyar, Chennai 600 020
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, CALL FOR RECORDS on the file
of the 5th respondent in memo no. 52/2018/CMDP DN -I /JDO dated
06.06.2024 and the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent in
government Gazettee no. VI (1) /130 (a-2) /2025 in no. 96 part VI section
1 dated 28.02.2025 insofar as the petitioners concerned and to quash the
same as illegal incompetent and without jurisdiction
5/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
W.P.No.39066 of 2025:
T.Elangovan
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 05
2.The Principal Secretary to Governmennt of Tamil Nadu,
Chairman Streering Committee for OMR-ECR Link Road Project,
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
II Floor, West Wing, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project Circle,
No.1/A, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Chennai 15
6.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project,
Division-1, Alandur, Chennai 16
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned Modified alignment dated 22.06.2018
and the impugned Notification of the 1st respondent vide Ref. No. VI(1)/
6/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
561 (b- 5)/ 2024 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette, Extraordinary Part
VI, Number 276 (LA- V(i)/ 8226791/ 2024) dated 27.08.2024 in so far as
acquisition of residential house of petitioner comprised in Survey No
53/1AIK and bearing Patta No. 5063 situated in Plot No.69, First Main
Road, CLRI Nagar, Neelankarai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk Chennai
115 and to quash them as illegal and consequently direct the respondents
to form the said OMR- ECR link road in Straight line alignment only
based on the technical report of the technical expert committee appointed
by this Honble court
W.P.No.17954 of 2025:
A.A.Rasheed
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Commissioner of Land Administration ,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 05
2.The Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
3.The District Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
7/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
5.The Divisional Engineer (H),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
Authority Plan, Division 1, Alandur,
Chennai 16
6.Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 08
7.CLRI Staff Cooperative House,
Building society Ltd.,
Rep by Secretary,
No.235, 1st Main Road, CLRI Nagar,
Neelagarai, Chennai
8.Central Leather Research Institute,
Rep by Director,
Counsil of Scientific and Industrial Research,
Adyar, Chennai 600 020
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Call for the records in Tamil nadu
Gazette no 96 Part VI, Section -1 dated 28.02.2025 on the file fo the 1st
respondent and the consequential proceeding in na.Ka. A1/ 43/ 2024
dated 17.03.2025 on the file of the 4th respondent and to quash the same
and illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction
8/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
W.P.No.27228 of 2025:
T.Mangala Gowri
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Commissioner of Land Administration ,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 05
2.The Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
3.The District Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Divisional Engineer (H),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
Authority Plan, Division 1, Alandur,
Chennai 16
6.Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 08
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Call for the records
on the file of the 5th Respondent in Memo No 52 /2018 / CMDA DN-1/
9/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
JDO dated 06.06.2024 and the consequential proceedings of the 1st
Respondent in G.O. Ms. no 276 Part Vi, Section -1 dated 27.08.2024 of
the 1st Respondent in, insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to quash
the same as illegal, unjust, incompetent and without jurisdiction and
consequential direct the Respondents not to proceed further in respect of
the actions to be taken in the said above project of connecting the Rajiv
Gandhi Road with ECR, for the reasons mentioned above
W.P.No.7754 of 2025:
1.Mohammed Fasil
2.Humayun Kabir
3.C.Pari
4.Mohammed Fairose
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Commissioner of Land Administration ,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 05
2.The Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
3.The District Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Divisional Engineer (H),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
10/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
Authority Plan, Division 1, Alandur,
Chennai 16
6.Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 08
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Call for the records on the file of the
5th respondent in Memo No 52/2018 / CMDP DN-1 / JDO dated
06.06.2024 and consequential proceedings of the 1st respondnet in G.O
Ms. No 276, Part VI, Section -1 dated 27.08.2024 inso far as the
petitioners are concerned and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent
and without jurisdiction
W.P.No.39038 of 2025:
S.Kannagi
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 05
2.The Principal Secretary to Governmennt of Tamil Nadu,
Chairman Steering Committee for OMR-ECR Link Road Project,
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
11/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
II Floor, West Wing, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project Circle,
No.1/A, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Chennai 15
6.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project,
Division-1, Alandur, Chennai 16
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned Modified alignment dated 22.06.2018
and the impugned Notification of the 1st respondent vide Ref. No. VI(1)/
561 (b- 5)/ 2024 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette, Extraordinary Part
VI, Number 276 (LA- V(i)/ 8226791/ 2024) dated 27.08.2024 in so far as
acquisition of residential house of petitioner comprised in Survey No
50/15 and bearing Patta No. 3984 situated in Plot No. 160 , 10th cross
street, CLRI Nagar, Neelankarai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk Chennai
115 and to quash them as illegal and consequently direct the respondents
to form the said OMR- ECR link road in Straight line alignment only
based on the technical report of the technical expert committee appointed
by this Honble court
12/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
W.P.No.39043 of 2025:
Dr.T.P.Sastry
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 05
2.The Principal Secretary to Governmennt of Tamil Nadu,
Chairman Steering Committee for OMR-ECR Link Road Project,
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
II Floor, West Wing, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project Circle,
No.1/A, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Chennai 15
6.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project,
Division-1, Alandur, Chennai 16
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned Modified alignment dated 22.06.2018
13/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
and the impugned Notification of the 1st respondent vide Ref. No.
VI(1)/130 (a-1)/ 2025 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette,
Extraordinary Part VI, Number 96 (LA- V(1)/ 9533154 / 2025) dated
28.02.2025 in so far as acquisition of residential house of petitioner
comprised in Survey No 53/1A1J and bearing Patta No. 2378 situated in
Plot No. 75, 2nd main road, CLRI Nagar, Neelankarai Village,
Sholinganallur Taluk Chennai 115 and to quash them as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to form the said OMR- ECR link
road in Straight line alignment only based on the technical report of the
technical expert committee appointed by this Honble court
W.P.No.39048 of 2025:
C.Rose
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 05
2.The Principal Secretary to Governmennt of Tamil Nadu,
Chairman Steering Committee for OMR-ECR Link Road Project,
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
II Floor, West Wing, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
14/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project Circle,
No.1/A, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Chennai 15
6.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project,
Division-1, Alandur, Chennai 16
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned Modified alignment dated 22.06.2018
and the impugned Notification of the 1st respondent vide Ref. No.
VI(1)/561 (b-5)/ 2024 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette,
Extraordinary Part VI, Number 276 (LA- V(1)/ 8226791/ 2024) dated
27.08.2024 in so far as acquisition of residential house of petitioner
comprised in Survey No 53/1A1L and bearing Patta No. 2380 situated in
Plot No. 73 , 2nd main road, CLRI Nagar, Neelankarai Village,
Sholinganallur Taluk Chennai 115 and to quash them as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to form the said OMR- ECR link
road in Straight line alignment only based on the technical report of the
technical expert committee appointed by this Honble court
W.P.No.39067 of 2025:
S.Mohanraj
... Petitioner
15/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 05
2.The Principal Secretary to Governmennt of Tamil Nadu,
Chairman Steering Committee for OMR-ECR Link Road Project,
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
II Floor, West Wing, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project Circle,
No.1/A, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Chennai 15
6.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project,
Division-1, Alandur, Chennai 16
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned Modified alignment dated 22.06.2018
and the impugned Notification of the 1st respondent vide Ref. No. VI(1)/
561 (b- 5)/ 2024 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette, Extraordinary Part
VI, Number 276 (LA- V(i)/ 8226791/ 2024) dated 27.08.2024 in so far as
16/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
acquisition of residential house of petitioner comprised in Survey No
50/2E and bearing Patta No. 2264 situated in Plot No.158, 10th cross
street, CLRI Nagar, Neelankarai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk Chennai
115 and to quash them as illegal and consequently direct the respondents
to form the said OMR- ECR link road in Straight line alignment only
based on the technical report of the technical expert committee appointed
by this Honble court
W.P.No.30790 of 2024:
1.K.Mani
2.C.V.Kamala
3.K.Senthilnathan
4.Shirani Gomez
5.S.Venkatesan
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Commissioner of Land Administration ,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 05
2.The Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
3.The District Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Divisional Engineer (H),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
17/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
Authority Plan, Division 1, Alandur,
Chennai 16
6.Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 08
7.CLRI Staff Cooperative House,
Building society Ltd.,
Rep by Secretary,
No.235, 1st Main Road, CLRI Nagar,
Neelagarai, Chennai
8.Central Leather Research Institute,
Rep by Director,
Counsil of Scientific and Industrial Research,
Adyar, Chennai 600 020
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Call for the records on the file of the
5th respondent in Memo No.52/2018/ CMDP DN-I/ JDO dated
06.06.2024 and the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent in
G.O. Ms. No.276, Part VI, Section-1 dated 27.08.2024 insofar as the
petitioners are concerned and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent
and without jurisdiction
W.P.No.31020 of 2024:
A.R.K.A.Karuthapandian
... Petitioner
18/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 05
2.The Principal Secretary to Governmennt of Tamil Nadu,
Chairman Steering Committee for OMR-ECR Link Road Project,
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
II Floor, West Wing, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project Circle,
No.1/A, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Chennai 15
6.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project,
Division-1, Alandur, Chennai 16
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the
records relating to the impugned Modified Alignment dated 22.06.2018
on the fie of 6th respondent and the consequent proceedings of the 1st
Respondent in ref No.No.VI (1) /561 (b-5) / 2024 published in the Tamil
Nadu Gazette Extraordinary, Part VI, Number 276 (LA-V(1) / 8226791 /
19/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
2024) Dated .27.08.2024 in so far as acquisition of residential house and
shop of Petitioner comprised in Survey No.52/21 and 51/14B,
Neelankarai Village, Sozhinganallur Taluk, Chennai District and to quash
them as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to form the said
OMR - ECR link road only on the most feasible straight line link road
alignment based on the technical report of the expert committee
appointment by this Honble Court.
W.P.No.27401 of 2024:
K.Meganathan
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Commissioner of Land Administration ,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 05
2.The Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
3.The District Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Divisional Engineer (H),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
Authority Plan, Division 1, Alandur,
Chennai 16
20/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
6.Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 08
7.CLRI Staff Cooperative House,
Building society Ltd.,
Rep by Secretary,
No.235, 1st Main Road, CLRI Nagar,
Neelagarai, Chennai
8.Central Leather Research Institute,
Rep by Director,
Counsil of Scientific and Industrial Research,
Adyar, Chennai 600 020
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Call for the records on the file of the
5th respondent in Memo No.52/2018/ CMDP DN-I/ JDO dated
06.06.2024 and the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent in
G.O. Ms. No.276, Part VI, Section-1 dated 27.08.2024 insofar as the
petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal incompetent and
without jurisdiction
W.P.No.28118 of 2024:
1.M.Boopathy
2.R.Kesavan
3.Selvarai Gijayan
4.K.Vinayagam
5.A.Rajasekar
21/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
6.K.S.Sathyanarayanan
7.Sulochana Peethambaram
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Commissioner of Land Administration ,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 05
2.The Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
3.The District Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Divisional Engineer (H),
Chennai Metropolitan Development,
Authority Plan, Division 1, Alandur,
Chennai 16
6.Chennai Metropolitan,
Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 08
7.CLRI Staff Cooperative House,
Building society Ltd.,
Rep by Secretary,
No.235, 1st Main Road, CLRI Nagar,
Neelagarai, Chennai
8.Central Leather Research Institute,
Rep by Director,
22/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
Counsil of Scientific and Industrial Research,
Adyar, Chennai 600 020
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Call for the records on the file of the
5th respondent to Memo No.52/2018/ CMDP DN-I/ JDO dated
06.06.2024 and the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent in
G.O. MS. No.276 Part VI, Section-1 dated 27.08.2024 insofar as the
petitioners are concerned and to quash the same as illegal incompetent
and without jurisdiction
W.P.No.29392 of 2024:
Peeran Gazalla Sultana
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 05
2.The Principal Secretary to Governmennt of Tamil Nadu,
Chairman Steering Committee for OMR-ECR Link Road Project,
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
II Floor, West Wing, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
23/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
4.Special District Revenue Officer (LA&M),
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 025
5.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project Circle,
No.1/A, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Chennai 15
6.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project,
Division-1, Alandur, Chennai 16
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the
records relating to the impugned Modified Alignment dated 22-06- 2018
and the Memo No.52/ 2018/ CMDP DN -1/ JDO/ dated 06.06.2024 on
the file of 6th Respondent and the consequent Notification of the 1st
respondent under Section 15 (1) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 vide
ref. No. No. VI (1)/ 561 (b-5)/ 2024 published in Tamil Nadu Gazette,
Extraordinary, Part VI, Number 276 (LA-V(1) / 822679 1/2024) dated
27.08.2024 in so far as acquisition of residential house of Petitioner
comprised in S.No.51/14A2 in Neelankarai Village, Sholinganallur taluk,
Chennai District and to quash them as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to form the said OMR- ECR link road only on the most
feasible straight line link road alignment based on the technical report of
the expert committee appointed by this Honble court.
24/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
W.P.No.14411 of 2022:
Zubaida Mahjabeen Sadulla
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary to Gov. of TN,
(Chairman Steering Committee of OMR-ECR Link Road Project),
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2),
Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
II Floor, West Wing, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008
4.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project Circle,
No.1/A, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Chennai 15
5.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development,
Division 1, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
6.Special Deputy Collector (LA)
TNUDP III, Alandur, Chennai 16
7.M/s.Lantech Engineers (P) Ltd.,
No.4, 2nd Cross, Seethammal Colony,
Alwarpet, Chennai 18.
... Respondents
25/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the
records relating to the impugned Modified Alignment Dated 22.06.2018
and the impugned Detailed Project Report (DPR) dated 12.06.2014
issued by the 5th Respondent and to quash both of them and
consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to expeditiously complete the
finalization of the said Modified OMR- ECR Link Road Alignment to
pass through Option 2- North Side Diversion (Connecting ECR at its Km
16 / 790 point) and direct the 5th Respondent to form the entire OMR-
ECR link road and construction of Bridge across Buckingham Canal
connecting Rajiv Gandhi Salai and ECR as per the Modified OMR- ECR
Link Road Alignment Approved by the 3rd Respondent
W.P.No.10035 of 2021:
T.Poovarasi
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 9
2.The Chief Engineer (Highways) (CMDP),
Chennai Metro Integrated Office,
76, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai 25
3.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development Project Circle,
Saidapet, Chennai 15
26/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
4.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Chennai Metro Development,
Division 1, Guindy, Chennai 32
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to
consider and take appropriate action on the petitioners representation
made to them on 21.12.2020 requesting them to form the proposed
Radial Road (link Road) connecting OMR and ECR across Buckingham
Canal, extension of Pallavaram and Thoraipakkam Radial Road in a
straight line without any diversion or deviation and to form as a Radial
Road
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Sr.counsel,
for Ms.V.Srimathi in WP.Nos.32104,
7754, 28118, 30388, 17954, 33384/25
& 30790 & 27401 of 2024
Mr.Om Prakash, Sr.counsel,
for Mr.S.Abubacker Sidhic
in WP.Nos.10035/21 & 14411/22
Mr.S.Abubacker in WP.Nos.39038,
39043, 39067, 39048, 39066 of 2025
29392 & 31020 of 2024
Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab
for M/s.K.V.Subramaniam Associates
in WP.No.27228 of 2025
27/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG,
Asst. by Mr.A.Selvendran, SGP
for R1 to R5 in WP.Nos.32104, 7754,
27228, 17954, 30388, 33384/2025
28118, 30740, 27401 of 2024
for R1, 2, 4 to 6 in WP.Nos.39038,
39043, 39067, 39048, 39066/25,
29392, 29392, 31020/24, 14411/22
for R1 to 4 in WP.No.10035/21
Mr.V.Sudalai Selvan, St.counsel,
for R6 in WP.No.32104 of 2025
for R3 in WP.No.39038, 39043, 39067,
39048 & 39066 of 2025
Mr.P.Veena Suresh, St.counsel
for R3 in WP.No.14411/22
for R6 in WP.No.7754/25
Ms.K.Mageswari, St.counsel
for R6 in WP.No.28118, 27401, 30790/24
for R3 in WP.No.29392, 31020/2024
Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan, St.counsel,
for R6 in WP.No.27228/25
Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, SPC
for R8 in WP.No.30790/24
No appearance
for R7 & 8 in WP.No.28118/24
for R7 in WP.No.27401 of 2024
Proof not filed for R7 in WP.No.14411/22
28/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
COMMON ORDER
All the writ petitions, except WP.No.10035 of 2021, have been filed challenging the impugned award dated 06.06.2024, Modified Alignment Report dated 22.06.2018, Detailed Project Report dated 12.06.2024 and the impugned Notifications dated 27.08.2024 & 28.02.2025.
2. The writ petition, in WP.No.10035 of 2021, has been filed to direct the respondents herein to consider and take appropriate action on the petitioners representation made on 21.12.2020 requesting them to form the proposed Radial Road (link Road) connecting OMR and ECR across Buckingham Canal, extension of Pallavaram and Thoraipakkam Radial Road in a straight line without any diversion or deviation and to form as a Radial Road
3. Petitioners' submissions:
3.1 The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that in these cases, the main challenge was 29/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch made against the formation of OMR-ECR link road by adopting Option-1, which is against the option suggested by the Technical Consultant, namely, M/s.Lantech Engineers Private Limited (hereinafter called as “Technical Consultant”).
3.2 Initially, the Technical Consultant was appointed by the Highways Department on 01.06.2012 for the purpose of conducting field survey. After conducting extensive survey, the Consultant had categorically recommended Option-2, connecting the link road to ECR at Km16/8, near Bharat Petrol Bunk, as the most feasible alignment. The Consultant found Option-1 (connecting ECR at Km16/9) which is 130 mtr away Option-2 ending point to pass through dense residential areas and cause significantly more displacement. However, contrary to the said report, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had rejected Option-2 without assigning any technical reason but merely noted that Option-1 was “already frozen by CMDA”.
30/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch 3.3 According to the petitioners, the Technical Sub-Committee had mechanically adopted the unsupported recommendation, made by TAC, vide its meeting dated 26.09.2012. Thereafter, the State Level Steering Committee, in its meeting dated 29.10.2012, initially accepted the Consultants's Option-2 recommendation and directed an Action committee (Divisional Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Special Deputy Collector) to conduct a factual feasibility study and submit a detailed report. However, in the subsequent meeting of the Steering Committee held on 22.07.2013, the Highways Department claimed that the CMDA had already frozen Option-1, despite CMDA later affirming as follows:
a. It had no role in deciding the link-road alignment;
b. It had not frozen any alignment;
c. Alignment finalization was exclusively the responsibility of the Highways Department;
In spite of the above letter, the Steering Committee approved Option-1 alignment (OMR Km 17/0 to ECR Km 16/9) on 22.07.2013 without: 31/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
i) feasibility report directed to be submitted in its meeting on 29.10.2012,
ii) verifying the consultant's findings,
iii) any technical justification
iv) considering the impact on residential areas.
Therefore, according to the petitioners, the best alignment proposed by Technical Consultant was dumped without due consideration.
3.4 Hence, the actions of the Highways Department appears to be malefide and the State Level Steering Committee, without any application of mind, had approved Option-1 in an arbitrary manner without verifying the real fact and sufferings of the residents.
3.5 Under these circumstances, on 19.06.2014, the Government issued GO(Ms)No.70, granting administrative sanction for the entire 1.45 km alignment, solely based on the Steering Committee's approval.
Thereafter, the notification under Section 15(2) of the Act was issued on 09.11.2025 for acquiring the land from OMR up to Buckimgham Canal.
The same was challenged in the WP.Nos. 37716, 38440, 38441 & 38442 32/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch of 2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2018, against which, the writ appeals were preferred in WA.Nos.1029, 1030, 1031 & 1032 of 2018. When the said appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced a communication dated 02.07.2018 stating that the lands belonging to the appellants therein are no longer required for the purpose of development of Highways in view of the Revised Alignment of the Scheme and hence, the land acquisition proceedings are to be dropped. By recording the said communication, the writ appeals were closed.
3.6 By referring the above, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that if the Revised Alignment of the Scheme is going to be prepared, the approval of Steering Committee, Technical Sub Committee and TAC are required to be obtained. However, without getting any such approval, merely based on the Modified Alignment Report, which was signed by the Divisional Engineer and Superintending Engineer, the road laying process, from OMR to Buckingham Canal, was commenced. Now, the impugned Notifications were issued, under 33/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch Section 15(1) &15(2), on 27.08.2024 & 28.02.2025 and the same were challenged before this Court.
3.7 Yet another grievance of the petitioner is that though the public hearing date was fixed, on 25.06.2024, for the purpose of considering the views/grievances of the petitioners, who are challenging the aforesaid notifications, the award was passed as early as on 06.06.2024, i.e., prior to the date of said public hearing, without hearing the petitioners, which is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, now the award dated 06.06.2024 is also under challenge before this Court on the ground it is not sustainable in law. Further, a submission was made on the aspect of violation of the provisions of Section 3 & 8 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 in forming the subject link road.
3.8 That apart, they pointed out that more residential buildings are situated in the Option-1 alignment than the Option-2 alignment. Hence, for all the reasons stated above, the learned Senior counsel requests this Court to quash the impugned Notifications and award and all the other consequential proceedings.
34/57https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
4. Respondents' submissions:
4.1 On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents would submit that the present petitions have been filed on the cause of action that the petitioners' land will get affected in the event of implementation of the Option-1 alignment. The said cause of action is not with regard to the public interest but it is only about the private interest of the petitioners.
4.2 The petitioners are not technical experts to dictate terms on the technical report submitted by the consultant. After considering various factors, initially, the TAC had approved Option-1 and subsequently, the Steering Committee, vide its meeting dated 26.09.2012, approved the Consultant's presentation with regard to the alignment proposal.
4.3 However, since very many complaints were received from the public for implementing Option-1, the Committee directed the Divisional 35/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch Engineer and Superintending Engineer to verify the facts with Special Deputy Collector and submit a detailed report regarding the feasibility of proposal. Accordingly, a detailed study was conducted by the Consultant on the alignment impact in the month of March, 2013. After taking into consideration of the said alignment impact, the Technical Consultant approved Option-1 alignment as the most preferable alignment with less cost and damages. By considering the all these aspects and reports, the Steering Committee, vide its meeting on 22.07.2013, had ultimately approved Option-1.
4.4 A submission was made by the petitioner that the TAC had noted that Option-1 was “already frozen by CMDA”. In this regard, CMDA has informed that it is nothing but a proposal for adopting Option-1 in the 2nd master plan, however, they have clearly stated in the counter to the extent that they are no way connected with the formation of road and they are not Authorities to freeze the same. However, the TAC had used the word wrongly as “frozen” instead of “marking” of road by CMDA in the 2nd master plan. Merely, by way of the marking the 36/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch proposed ECR-OMR linking road, no approval was provided by CMDA at that stage.
4.5 Further, he would pointed that that the lands, acquired for implementing Option-1 alignment, have less number of approved buildings than the lands, proposed for Option-2 alignment. The said aspect was clearly stated in the consultant report.
4.6 As far as the challenge against the award dated 06.06.2024 is concerned, he would submit that due notices have been issued under Section 15(1) & 15(2) of the Act and the enquiry was fixed on 25.06.2024. In majority of cases, the enquiry was already completed, based on which, the award was passed on 06.06.2024 itself.
4.7 He would fairly admit that though the said award was inadvertently passed prior to the public hearing, as stated above, the fact remains that in majority of cases, the enquiry was already completed and 37/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch the writ petitioners cannot improve their case. Even if the audience was given to the petitioners, it would only be an empty formality and the same will not vitiate the implementation of entire project.
4.8 Further, he would contend that the Modification Alignment Report was already approved by the Superintending Engineer and Divisional Engineer. Therefore, after obtaining all proper approval and issuance of due notices, the concerned officials had proceeded for formation of link road and there is no fault on the part of the respondent.
4.9 In so far as the violation of provisions of Section 5 is concerned, he would submit that the same is not required in this case, since it would apply only in the event of ribbon development. In so far as the provisions of Section 3 is concerned, the same would apply only in the case of existing new road and not for the present case, which is pertaining to the formation of new road.
38/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch 4.10 He would also submit that the road from OMR to Buckingham Canal was already formed and now, the steps have been taken for the implementation of road from Buckingham Canal to ECR by adopting Option-1 as suggested by the Consultant and approved by the Committee.
4.11 As stated above, these writ petitions are filed only for the private interest and not for the public interest. Normally, the public interest will prevail over the private interest and in such case, these petitions are liable to be dismissed. Therefore, he would contend that there are no merits in the submissions made by the petitioner and prays for dismissal of these petitions.
5. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
39/57https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
6. The main contention of the petitioners is with regard to the non-
implementation of Option-2 alignment as approved by Steering Committee and further, against the issuance of Notification under Section 15(2) & 15(1) and passing of award dated 06.06.2024 in violation of principles of natural justice.
7. The CMDA, initially, muted a master plan for the proposal of road connecting OMR and ECR through Buckingham Canal and the same was approved on 19.09.2008. Accordingly, the Highways Department had appointed the consultant on 01.06.2012. Subsequent, the Consultant had presented the alignment of Option-1, which was recommended by TAC, before the Technical Sub-Committee in its 3 rd meeting. The said alignment was also approved by Technical Sub-
Committee vide its meeting dated 26.09.2012 and the same was re-
produced hereunder:-
4. Forming Link Road connecting Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) and East Coast Road (ECR) at Neelankarai including construction of Bridge across Buckingham Canal. (Consultant: M/s.Land Tech Engineers Private limited) 40/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch The consultant presented the alignment in Option-1, which is recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee, i.e., direct connectivity from Pallavaram Thoripakkam road at ECR to Neelankarai.
The alignment is approved by the Committee. The width and the alignment are already frozen by CMDA in Second Master Plan. The ROW is 30.50m. Junction with ECR is to be explored in detail.
Navigation proposals may be confirmed from the PWD, WRO in concurrence with the Inland Waterway Authority of India Guidelines.
8. A perusal of the above would show that the Consultant had presented an alignment for Option-1, which was recommended by the TAC and the said alignment of Option-1 was approved without any modification by the Technical Sub-Committee. Admittedly, in the Master Plan, filed before this Court, the proposal of CMDA for formation of road has already been marked. The Technical Sub-Committee had referred the said marking as it was “frozen by CMDA”.
9. Subsequently, CMDA filed a counter by stating that they have not frozen the Option-1 alignment and they have no authority to do so and also they are not responsible for the finalization of any alignment but 41/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch it is only a proposal in the 2nd master plan. Of course, the CMDA has no authority to freeze the said road and it is only the responsibility of Highways Department to initiate any action for implementation of road approved in Option-1. However, in the minutes of Technical Sub Committee, it was wrongly mentioned as “frozen” instead of “marking”.
10. Subsequently, on 29.10.2012, the Technical Sub-Committee considered the formation of link-road connecting Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) and East Coast Road (ECR) at Neelankarai including construction of Bridge across Buckingham canal based on the presentation of the Consultant and recorded the minutes as follows:-
3. Forming Link Road connecting Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) and East Coast Road (ECR) at Neelankarai including construction of bridge across Buckingham Canal.
(Consultant: Land Tech Engineers Pvt Ltd.) The consultant presented the alignment proposals of direct connectivity from Pallavaram Thoraipakkam Road at km 17/1 of OMR to Neelankarai at km 16/8 of ECR. The width and the alignment are already frozen by CMDA Second Master Plan. The alignment had already been recommended by Technical Sub-Committee on 26.09.2012. It was reported that many petitions were received for change of alignment of the proposal due to the possibility 42/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch affecting many buildings. Hence, the committee requested the Division Engineer (H) CMDP Division II and the Superintending engineer (H), CMDA Circle to verify the facts with the assistance of Special Deputy Collector and submit the detailed report regarding the feasibility of proposal. The proposal will be taken up after the detailed study by the above action committee.
11. A perusal of the above minutes would show that due to the reason that many petitions were received for change in alignment, a direction was given to the Divisional Engineer and Superintending Engineer to verify the fact with Special Deputy Collector and submit a detailed report. Accordingly, a detailed DPR was also made ready by the Consultant in the month of March, 2013. In the said report, the Consultant has categorically stated that the Option-1 is most preferable alignment and in paragraph No.7, it has been stated as follows:-
7.0 ALIGNMENT IMPACT STUDY Inorder to ascertain the impact of the proposed link road options on the existing buildings and residential settlements, a field survey was organised and conducted at the project location. Reconnaissance survey of the land, structures and streets affected by the two options was carried out.
The following parameters were collected in the field survey, Land Use, Type of Building, Approved or Unapproved Structure, Number of Floors, Plot 43/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch Coverage, Street name, Area/Colony/Nagar Name, Street Width, Type of Pavement, etc. These parameters were collected in order to ascertain the impact of the proposed alignment options.
7.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 (CMDA notified area) The entire alignment in this option passes through CMDA notified area for the link road connectivity. A preliminary field survey was carried out to identify the impact of the allenment in the project area. The alignment Option 1 begins at OMR road Pallikaranal intersection and ends at ECR road (km 16/930) ● A Government primary school is affected in this alignment at 0.025 chainage. The Pallikaranai 100ft road intersects with the Rajiv Gandhi salai opposite to the primary school. The primary school can be relocated to the neighbouring higher secondary school land or Ward office land. Since suitable government land available ● Further the alignment passes through Subbarayan Nagar Street and 3rd Cross street from 0+150 to 0+735. Five houses are affected in the 3rd cross street of Subbarayan nagar Beyond 3rd street the alignment passes through a burial ground and then on the existing road. The existing street has a right of way 5m. The alignment utilises this right of way (ROW) at RHS and remaining 25m passes on the existing vacant land on the LHS side of alignment. Hence there is no impact on buildings in this street.
● The alignment passes through Arignar Anna Nagar 7th street from 0+735 to 0+790 Economically weaker section (EWS) and Low Income Group (LIG) people are living in this area. The buildings affected are mostly Hutments and Structures with Sheet/Tile roofing. In this area 44/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch most of the built up area affected due to alignment are unapproved developments. Also the structures present along the Buckingham canal are encroachments into Buckingham canal land area. ● The Alignment crosses the Buckingham canal at 0+790 to 0+820. The built up area present on either side of the canal, are mostly encroachments in PWD Puramboke land.
● In between Buckingham canal and ECR road the alignment passes across fairly residential area from 0+820 to 1+400.
● The alignment crosses Arignar Anna Nagar from 0+820 to 0+880. In this locality the affected structures are mostly huts, sheet roofing houses and few RCC structures. In This area most of the residential plots are unapproved developments The type of settlement is mostly EWS and LIG group. ● Further the alignment passes through Bharathiyar Nagar from 0+880 to 0+990. In this locality most of the affected structures are huts, sheet roofing houses and few RCC structures Most of the people belong to the low income group.
● The alignment passes through CLRI nagar from 0+990 to 1+350 In CLRI nagar following streets are affected in the alignment. They include 1st main road, 8th cross Street, 10th cross street, 12th cross street and Shyamala street. This locality consists of RCC buildings with varying umber of floors (G, G+1 and G+2), some of the RCC buildings are under construction. Sheet roofing houses are very minimal. Most of the population present here belong to the Middle income group The area is an unapproved layout. Many vacant plots are also present along the alignment in this area.
● 1+350 to 1+472 the alignment passes through vacant land up to 1+400 Beyond which certain 45/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch structures ie. a small complex, few houses and a building gets affected.
● The alignment ends in front of a commercial building in ECR at km 16/930 7.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALIGNMENT OPTION 2 (non CMDA notified area) In this option, the alignment passes through CMDA notified area on the western side of Buckingham canal where as the alignment is deviated on the eastern side from the CMDA notified area inorder to achieve minimal impact on existing structures. The alignment Option 2 begins at OMR road-Pallikaranai intersection and ends at ECR road (km 16/790).
● A Government primary school is affected in this alignment at 0-025 chainage. The Pallikaranai 100ft road intersects with the Rajiv Gandhi salai opposite to the primary school. The primary school can be relocated to the neighboring higher secondary school land or Ward office land. Since suitable government land available.
● Further the alignment passes through Subbarayan Nagar Street and 3rd Cross street from 0+150 to 0+735. Five houses are affected in the 3d cross street of Subbarayan nagar. Beyond 3rd street the alignment passes through a burial ground and then on the existing road. The existing street has a right of way 5m. The alignment utilises this right of way (ROW) at RHS and remaining 25m passes on the existing vacant land on the LHS side of alignment. Hence there is no impact on buildings in this street.
● From 0+600 to 0+725 the alignment passes completely through vacant land area.
● The alignment passes through Arignar Anna Nagar 7th street from 0+725 to 0+790 Economically weaker section (EWS) and Low 46/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch Income Group (LIG) people are living in this area. The buildings affected are mostly Hutments and Structures with Sheet/Tile roofing. In this area most of the built up area affected due to alignment are unapproved developments. Also the structures present along the Buckingham canal are encroachments into Buckingham canal land area. ● The Alignment crosses the Buckingham canal at 0+800. The built up area present on either side of the canal, are mostly encroachments in PWD Puramboke land.
● In between Buckingham canal and ECR road the alignment passes across residential area from 0+850 to 1+400.
● The alignment crosses Arignar Anna Nagar from 0+850 to 0+880. In this locality the affected structures are reinforced cement concrete buildings, huts and sheet roofing houses. In this area most of the residential plots are unapproved layout.
● Further the alignment passes through Saraswathi Nagar from 0+880 to 0+980. In this locality affected structures are reinforced cement concrete buildings, huts and sheet roofing houses.
● The alignment passes through CLRI nagar and from 0+980 to 1+260. In CLRI nagar main road, 3rd cross Street, 5th cross street, 5th cross street (last), 6th cross street cross street and 14th cross street are affected by the alignment. This locality consists of structures like reinforced concrete structures (G, G + 1 and G + 2 ) ● Further the alignment passes through Rubi complex road from 1+260 to 1+370. High Income Group (HIG) and Middle Income Group (MIG) people are living in this area. The alignment passes along the street affecting the RCC residential buildings (G.G+1and G+2) on both 47/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch sides. In between 1+260 to 1+370, the alignment passes through many empty plots.
● From 1+370 to 1+472, few commercial buildings and a petrol bunk is affected.
The survey was carried out in order to identify the type and intensity of various developments along both the alignment (Option 1 & 2). A comparative summary of the number of buildings affected and total area affected and type of structures affected in each option has been listed in the table below based on the field survey. Annexure 1 contains the field data collected across the project affected area. Annexure 2 contains list and classification of land type affected in the project area.
S.N Type of Residential Approximate No.of buildings affected
o Option 1 Option 2
1 RCC (G,G+1 & G+2) 86 48
2 Huts 8 7
3 Sheet Roofing 9 8
Table 1.1 Statement No. of buildings affected.
S. Type of Structure Option 1 Option 2
No Built up Built up Built up Built up
area (in area (in area (in area (in
sq.m) hectares) sq.m) hectares)
1 RCC School 842 0.08 842 0.08
building Residential 21581 2.15 14988 1.40
2 Under construction 943 0.09
3 Sheet School 209 0.02 209 0.02
Roofing Residential 492 0.04 522 0.05
4 Hut 793 0.07 650 0.06
24780 2.45 17211 1.61
Total built up area
Table 1.2 Area Statement Structures Affected 48/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch S. Type of land Option 1 Option 2 N Area (in Area (in Area (in Area (in o sq.m) hectares) sq.m) hectares) 1 Government School 2040 0.2 2040 0.20 land Street 2790 0.3 3153 0.32 2 Private land 14510 1.4 12560 1.26 Total Area 19340 1.9 17753 1.78 Table 1.3 Area Statement of Land type affected 8.0 CONCLUSION In option 1 the entire alignment passes through land area notified by the CMDA in the second master plan and establishes straight link connectivity from OMR to ECR. Though more buildings area affected in this option than in option 2, most of the residential area present in this alignment is not approved by the CMDA. This alignment allows for lesser impact on shifting of utilities, since it is limited to electricity poles and minor shifting of telephone network and junction boxes.
The option 2 alignment passes through fairly vacant land with lesser impact of residential area. But a part of the developments in this alignment are approved by the CMDA This may cause violation and hindrance for the land acquisition process.
Hence, option 1 alignment is the most preferred alignment”.
12. A perusal of the above would show that Option-1 appears to be beneficial according to the Consultant. Thereafter, the Steering Committee, vide its meeting dated 22.07.2013, had approved the 49/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch Option-1 alignment of the 2nd Master plan after due consideration of the consultant report and passed the following resolution:-
The consultants presented the proposals as detailed below:
1. Forming link road connecting Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) and East Coast Road(ECR) at Neelankarai including construction of Bridge across Buckingham Canal.
(Consultant: Landtech Engineers Private Limited) The proposed alignment is the direct connectivity from Pallavaram Thoripakkam road at ECR to Neelankarai which is recommended by the Technical Sub-Committee. The ROW is 30.50m. The width and the alignment are already frozen by CMDA in Second Master Plan. While placing the proposal before the Steering Committee on 29.10.2012, it was decided to prepare the detailed report regarding the feasibility of proposal, since many petitions were received regarding alignment proposal.
Since the proposed alignment is as per the Second Master Plan which is already frozen by the CMDA and if the alignment is modified, objections from other affected people will be raised enormously. Hence the alignment as per the Second Master Plan was placed before the Steering Committee and the alignment was approved The Steering Committee suggested the following points to be incorporated in the studies.
➤ The footpath may be increased wherever feasible for pedestrian functionality and provision of required road furniture.
➤ Bus bays on both sides shall be provided atleast in two places each side with necessary amenities.
50/57https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch ➤ The LPS proposals for acquiring/aligning land shall be expedited ➤ The junction improvements at both ends shall be clearly design as per IRC codes.
13. A perusal of the above would show that in the presence of all officers, Authorities and Consultant only, the Committee had approved to adopt the alignment as proposed by CMDA in 2nd Master Plan, which was suggested by the Consultant.
14. Under these circumstances only, after due approval, the respondents had implemented the project. Thereafter, on 19.06.2014, the proposal was accepted and accordingly, the administrative sanction for a sum of Rs.204.20 Crore was provided for formation of link road from OMR to ECR and for construction of bridge across Buckingham Canal.
15. Thereafter, the writ petitions in WP.Nos. 37716, 38440, 38441 & 38442 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner against the issuance of Section 15(2) Notification and the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2018, against which, the writ appeals were preferred in 51/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch WA.Nos.1029, 1030, 1031 & 1032 of 2018. When the said appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced a communication dated 02.07.2018 stating that the lands belonging to the appellants therein are no longer required for the purpose of development of Highways in view of the Revised Alignment of the Scheme and hence, the land acquisition proceedings are to be dropped.
By recording the said communication, the writ appeals were closed.
16. Subsequently, the Modified Alignment Report was prepared by the Divisional Engineer and Superintending Engineer on 22.06.2018.
Thereafter, with the proper approval, the same was implemented by the respondents. Now, the entire road from OMR to Buckingham Canal was already completed and a fresh acquisition have been initiated to acquire land for formation of road from Buckingham Canal to ECR. In this regard, a notice under Section 15(2) was issued and the award was passed on 06.06.2024.
52/57https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
17. The other grievance of the petitioner is that though the public hearing notice was issued by fixing the hearing date on 25.06.2024, the award was passed on 06.06.2024, without hearing the petitioners and hence, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice.
18. However, according to the respondents, in majority of cases, the enquiry was already completed, based on which, the award was passed on 06.06.2024 itself. In such case, even if any further audience was given to the petitioners, they cannot improve their case.
19. From the above submission, it is clear that very many public hearings were conducted with regard to the very same acquisition and based on the same, the award dated 06.06.2024 was passed by the respondent. In such case, as rightly contended by the respondent, the issues raised by the petitioners were already heard vide earlier enquiries.
Therefore, the same yardstick would apply for petitioners as well and ultimately, the petitioners cannot improve their case any further. When such being the case, though there is some lapse on the part of the 53/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch respondents in passing the award, the same will not vitiate the entire process of implementation of project.
20. Admittedly, the respondents had obtained all the approvals from Steering Committee, Technical Sub Committee to implement the project by adopting the Modified Alignment Report. Further, these writ petitions are filed only to protect the private interest of the petitioners. If Option-1 is implemented, the petitioners will be put into hardship. In such case, the petitioners are really concerned only for their private interest and no aspects were raised on the public interest. Normally, the public interest will always prevail over the private interest. In such case, this Court is unable to accept the submissions made by the petitioner.
21. Further, as far as the implementation of Option-1 alignment is concerned, the same was not adopted by the respondents in suo moto manner. Initially, the CMDA, vide 2nd master plan, had proposed for a formation of link road between OMR and ECR. Subsequently, it was suggested by the Consultant that very many approved buildings are 54/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch situated in the lands, proposed to be acquired for implementation of Option-2 and if the said Option-2 is approved, certainly, the public interest will be affected at larger extent. After taking into consideration of this aspect, the respondent has taken a decision to implement the Option-1 alignment, as suggested by the Consultant. Therefore, I do not find any fault on the part of the respondent in decision making process.
22. As far as the reference made to Section 5 is concerned, the same would apply only for existing new project and not for new project.
The provisions of Section 8 is concerned, the same would be applicable for ribbon development. Hence, the said provisions will not applicable to the present cases. In such case, this Court does not find any substance in the submission made on the above aspect.
23. This Court had arrive at conclusion on the factual aspects of the present case. In such view of the matter, there is no requirement for making any reference or consideration on the case laws referred by the petitioners.
55/57https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch
24. For all the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are dismissed.
No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
24.02.2026 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index: Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No nsa 56/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm ) W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., batch KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa W.P.Nos.32104 of 2025, etc., Batch 24.02.2026 57/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 04:03:51 pm )